Quote:
Originally Posted by MuslimZ
This is the problem with American Muslims, though. We're so one-track minded that we only look at the foreign policy of a candidate to make our decisions and that's why we end up with this ridiculous concept of "choosing the lesser of two evils". It's that fundamentally oversimplified view of the issues that led to Muslims voting en masse for Bush the first time. Literally the most popularly stated reason at that time was "oh Gore's running mate is a Jew... so Bush is the lesser of two evils." Retarded. If you truly believe it's choosing the lesser of two evils I say don't vote.
|
Firstly, in order to participate in a secular liberal democratic state and not a Shari'ah based system, the 'Ulema have given a list of parameters of engagement that must be followed otherwise the permissibility of participating in such a political system is rendered void.
The first condition is not to engage in actions that promote injustice and oppression. The general rule to be followed is that one must ward off harms before acquiring benefits. This rule mandates that preventing the loss of life and destruction of infrastructure to human beings must be made a priority over acquiring benefits such as education, healthcare, etc.
The second condition is that one must not support oppression or oppressors. If one is going to elect a leader who does not directly benefit the community but only does so indirectly by promoting healthcare, but all the while has made it clear that he will invade a country that will result in the deaths of people, then this makes American Muslims who voted for him complicit in his oppression.
The third condition is that if one cannot make a clear choice between two leaders, but necessity demands one be supported, then one should support the lesser of two evils. With these basic principles in mind, lets delve into the core of the issue.
Secondly, many ethnic and religious groups have made foreign policy their highest priority and American Muslims are no different.
Examples of immigrant groups include but are not limited to:
(a) Irish Catholics: The bulk of them came in between 1847 - 1865 due to the Potato famine of 1848. By the end of the civil war, they made up 70% of the total white population. They opposed US entry into WWI on the side of the British. They opposed the US ratification of the Versailles Peace Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations. In particular, they opposed Article X of the covenant which guaranteed the territorial integrity of all member states since this would result in Irish subjugation. The Sinn Fein movement was largely financed from the US.
(b) Germans: They are the second largest European ethnic group in the US and came in three waves: (i) prior to the civil war, (ii) 1865-1885, and (iii) between WWI until the early 1950s. They opposed the tripartite settlement of Samoa and the German American community largely contributed to the defeat of Grover Cleveland in the election of 1888 based on this issue. German Americans were strongly isolationist and were neutralist prior to both World Wars. In 1941, a US government report showed that German Americans voted in national elections in the interest of their fatherland and 90% of them were pro-Nazi because of their economic contributions.
(c) Eastern Europeans from Poland, Russia, Romania, and Czech Republic: They came in large numbers in the 1880s and have been strongly interventionist and pro-British.
(d) Jews: They immigrated sporadically to America throughout history. They began arriving in large numbers from Germany and Austria after the 1848 revolutions failed. The largest group of Jews came from Eastern Europe between 1880 and World War I. The third phase of immigration occurred from the 1930s to World War II when many fled Germany due to Nazi persecutions. Before the 1900s, the Jewish American community was concerned primarily in two areas: (i) the repeal of discriminatory commercial treaties and (ii) treatment of Jews in foreign countries. After World War I, they shifted their focus to US support for the creation of Israel. After World War II, they became concerned with displaced Jews gaining admission to the US.
(e) Cubans: Cubans have immigrated to the US at various times, the most recent wave came in the 1960s following the Cuban Revolution which bought Fidel Castro to power. In terms of foreign policy, their primary interest has been to isolate Castro's regime.
If one looks at American political history, it seems to be the norm that recent immigrants made foreign policy their highest priority, in spite of being in the country for only a relatively short period of time. This in and of itself should sufficiently rebut the argument that American Muslims have some sort of mythical responsibility to ignore foreign policy in spite of the fact that virtually no other immigrant group to the US has done so.
The problem is not that American Muslims have concerned themselves with foreign policy, but the methodology they've adopted in doing so. American Muslims have certain distinct issues that they must face that are unique to them. Unlike other immigrant groups, the American Muslim community is derived from a very broad range of countries, ethnic groups, and sects. The immigrant American Muslim population is made up predominantly of Arabs, Desis, Turks, and Africans. The native American Muslim population is predominantly African American but whites and latinos are quickly catching up. While Irish Americans could focus solely on Ireland, German Americans solely on Germany, Jewish Americans solely on Israel, and Cuban Americans solely on Cuba, the American Muslim community doesn't really have "center." The various ethnic and sectarian divisions within the American Muslim community have focused simultaneously on Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan.
The solution to this problem is to develop principles of strategic engagement rather than basing it solely on nationalism. Thus, instead of focusing on aid or sanctions to any one particular country, American Muslims should make the preservation of life in the Muslim world their goal. They should oppose military engagements with such countries unless its a truly defensive action and they should promote the use of international law and diplomacy rather than unilateralism. The second area of concern should be the preservation of liberties within the American Muslim community, such as basic civil rights and especially due process of law.
While some may argue that the priorities should be on "national" or "universal" issues, this doesn't follow the scheme of how ethnic groups in the US have behaved in the country's history. Moreover, common sense morality requires that we should be concerned with the preservation of life and liberty over acquiring luxuries. The population of America is 250 million whereas the population of the Muslim world is over 1 billion. The preservation of life in a larger portion of the world population should be given the priority over the acquisition luxuries of a smaller percentage of the world population.
So to declare that American Muslims should ignore foreign policy when engaging in the political process, especially when voting, is ignorant of the dynamics of ethnic engagement in the democratic process in the US. It also does not conform to the moral conditions that must be fulfilled in order for American Muslims to participate in this system in the first place. Finally, it doesn't make sense from a purely moral perspective either where the concern should be the preservation of life and liberty before the acquisition of luxuries. Ignoring foreign policy would be suicidal, ignorant, and immoral.
What American Muslims need is a smart way to mould US foreign policy, not to ignore it at all.
If American Muslims can't find a presidential candidate that aligns with their foreign policy vision, the solution is to pick the one who is the lesser of two evils and throw their money and votes behind the candidate who is most favorable in order to "discipline" their opponents. This is what Cuban-Americans and Jewish-Americans have done and there is no reason why American Muslims shouldn't be any different. If such a process is not viable because our community is not organized enough or lacks the financial wherewithal to do so or simply because no such candidates exist, then another option is to simply not vote in the presidential elections and focus on congressional seats and build up a proper base.
Re: Official Election 2008 thread
i wanted an islamica chat for the presidential debate, and no one was online! which is why i was forced to interact with people in "the real world" in the first place.
